News:

On 25th of January 2015, special session of United Nations Security Council was held regarding shelling attack on Mariupol. Representatives of Russian Federation that have veto power, did not allow the approval statement of Security Council on events in Mariupol. On accusations press-service of Russia in UN stated, that statement of Security Council was not agreed because of London "since delegation of Britain insisted in condemning by UN SC some statements of certain rebels". (Source)

Comment:

Over a period of one year, political analysts and officials have stated that annexation of Crimea by Russia in the first place is fraught with violation of unshakeable standards of international law.

There were many unsuccessful attempts to approve resolutions and statements by United Nations Security Council on crisis in Ukraine, where one of the last events in Mariupol was blocked on 25th of January.

Discussions about violation of international law intensified on the 20th anniversary of Budapest Memorandum (December 5, 2014), when analysts argued that violation of international agreement of such level will have fatal consequences for international law and relations, and also will urge proliferation of nuclear weapon in the world.

Today many people inclined to criticize Russia for violation of international law, however, in fact we must criticize not certain violations, but the current paradigm of international law itself. Yes, undoubtedly, Ukrainian crises exposed the paralysis and inefficiency of international relations system in general. If we carefully study the practical application and violation of international law, irrespectively in UN or in certain agreements and treaties, we will see that states were never motivated with concern about peace, nations and their prosperity. Such goals as "maintaining international peace and security" and "principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" that are secured in Charter of the United Nations remained phrases on paper that have no real impact on life of international community.

Let me cite two examples:

One of the events when international law was obviously violated was in March of 2003 when we witnessed invasion in independent state Iraq without any resolution of UN Security Council. Afterwards it became obvious for all that "concern about international stability" and "search and destruction of weapon of mass destruction" was nothing else but smoke screen for reformation of region on behalf of USA.

Sometimes the use of right of veto by some members in Security Council is used to justify inaction. Such situations have had taken place for three years since 2011 in Syrian crisis when US considered unfavorable overthrow of its proxy Bashar Assad in Syria. US closed eyes on all his crimes against own people, including usage of chemical weapon, and at the same time US impose responsibility on Russia for inaction, since Russia used veto power when any resolution that treats regime of Assad was under consideration in Security Council.

Feigned nature of American submission to decisions of UN is confirmed by the fact that when activity of Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi's organization "Islamic state" started to threaten (possible invasion of Bagdadi's organization in Iraqi Kurdistan) American plan of "division of Iraq by ethnic and sectarian identity", US struck positions of "Islamic state" in Syria on 22th of September. US attacked "Islamic state" without any resolutions of UN Security Council. This shows us that veto of Russia in UN is not the cause of American inactivity.

These are only two examples, however if we study the application of international law in history we will find many such cases. International law was always a tool in hands of superpowers for interference in domestic policy of independent states on behalf of own interests.
The main point is that the idea of "international law" can not exist, since terms "international" and "law" are not compatible. There three reasons for that:

1. Law - is the decree that is adopted by legislative body (ruler). International ruler can not exist a priori.

2. Law must be implemented, so enforcement machinery is needed. In a state this implemented by law enforcement institutions, like police. Implementation of this internationally is impossible since UN peacekeeping forces today are nothing but armed force coalition of different countries. So, these forces will not protect international law or for instance, sovereignty and interests of other nations, when this protection threatens their own states or their interests. This is what exactly happened in the Ukrainian crisis and violation of Budapest Memorandum by either aggressor Russia or other signers of this agreement.

3. The law regulates the relations. This regulation is appropriate only in relations between members of one certain society and could not be applied when it refers to states. Since every state has sovereign right to establish or avoid relations with countries according to own interests.

Since the concept of international law emerged, difference spread amongst the jurists of the west over the nature of its rules, and many of them doubted its binding force. I. Kant, G. Hegel, J. Austin and T. Hobbes denied the presence of a common international law.

However, later under pressure and lobbying of superpowers this idea become well-established in international relations.

Consequently international law with all its institutions became nothing but a tool for contest and struggle between such states as USA, Russia, England, France and China. Other nations, their states, resources and territory became victims of criminal usage of this tool by superpowers.

This is the main cause of instability that spread in many places of the world, where suffering of Ukraine and its people is only a small episode in an endless sequence of superpowers crimes.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Fadl Amzayev
Head of Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Ukraine

The Islamic State has a flag (Alam); whether it is a Liwaa' or Rayah, as deduced from the flags (Alwiyah) and banners (Rayat) of the first Islamic State, which the Messenger of Allah (saw) in al-Medina al-Munawwarah. The flag (Liwaa) is white, on which it is written "La Ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah" with black script. It is tied to the leader (Amir) of the army and is used as a sign ('alam) to him. The evidence for this is what was narrated by Ibn Majah «أن النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ دخل مكة يوم الفتح ولواؤه أبيض» "That the Prophet (saw) entered Makkah on the day of its conquest while raising a white flag". Al-Nasaa'i also narrated that

«أنه صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حين أمَّر أسامة بن زيد على الجيش ليغزو الروم عقد لواءه بيده»

"When the Prophet (saw) appointed Usama ibn Zayd as amir to the army for invading the Romans, he tied his flag with his own hands". The banner (Rayah) is black, on which it is written "La Ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah" with white script. It is carried by the leaders of the army divisions, battalions, detachments, and other army units. The evidence for this is that the Prophet (saw), while being the leader of the army in Khaybar, he said: «لأعطين الراية غداً رجلاً يحب الله ورسوله، ويحبه الله ورسوله، فأعطاها علياً»

"I will give the Raya tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His Messenger love him; and he gave it to Ali". (Hadith is agreed upon) Thus, Ali, may Allah bless him, was considered then a leader of a division or a battalion in the Army. As for the evidence for the color, it is narrated by al-Tirmidhi, that Albaraa ibn 'Aazib said when he was asked about the banner of the Messenger of Allah (saw):

«كَانَتْ سَوْدَاءَ مُرَبَّعَةً مِنْ نَمِرَةٍ»

"It was black squared from Namira". It is spread amongst the soldiers and the people when the soldiers return back victorious. The evidence for that is narrated by Bukhari in the Great History "At-Tareekh Al-Kabeer" who said Abu Bakr told me, said Thana Salam Bin Sulaiman Abu Mundhir told me Asim Abu Wael from Al-Harith ibn Hassan ibn Kaladah Al-Bakri said:

«دَخَلْتُ الْمَسْجِدَ فَرَأَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَائِمًا عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ يَخْطُبُ وَفُلانٌ قَائِمٌ مُتَقَلِّدٌ السَّيْفَ فَإِذَا رَايَاتٌ سُودٌ تَخْفِقُ! قُلْتُ: مَا هَذَا؟ قالوا: عَمْرُو بْنُ الْعَاصِ قَدِمَ مِنْ جَيْشِ ذَاتِ السَّلاسِلِ»

"We came to Medina and we saw the Prophet (saw) on the Mimbar, with someone standing in front of him wearing his sword. There were black banners (rayaat) in front of the Messenger (saw). I asked ‘what are these banners?' They said, ‘It is Amr ibn al-Aas who has just arrived from an expedition". They had returned victorious and the banners were many to celebrate the victory...

Moreover, the adoption of the Prophet (saw) of a black banner which he tied it to the brigades and a white flag which he tied it to the armies' leaders is an act of the Prophet (saw) that we must follow his example. It is not exceptional to the Messenger (saw), because just as the Prophet (saw) entered Makkah with the flag (Liwaa), he also tied a flag to Osama, and also recognized the banner (Rayah) of Jafar and his brothers in Mu'ta. The Messenger Allah (saw) said mourning to the people the death of Zayd, Ja'far and Ibn Ruwahah before the soldiers brought the news

«أَخَذَ الرَّايَةَ زَيْدٌ فَأُصِيبَ، ثُمَّ أَخَذَهَا جَعْفَرٌ فَأُصِيبَ، ثُمَّ أَخَذَهَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ رَوَاحَةَ فَأُصِيبَ»

"Zayd took the banner (raya) but he was hit; and then Ja'far took it and he was hit; and then Ibn Ruwahah took it and he was hit" (Reported by Bukhari from Anas ibn Malik (ra)). The banner is of great significance in Islam, it was taken as a motto of Muslims to gather under it, and by it their ranks are distinguished. It is chosen for it the brave forefront in their people and in the army to keep it lifted apparent for the people to see it, and if it falls they lift it and show extreme courage to prevent it falling, as the Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them, did in Mu'ta...

This is in regards to the flag and banner in the era of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and by his approval. Muslims should follow the example of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and make this flag their flag, and this banner their banner in the Islamic State, the Khilafah "Caliphate" Rashidah that they will establish soon, Allah willing, and if they do not follow the example of the Messenger of Allah (saw) there will be sedition (Fitnah)... And this is what is perceived and evident in the torn Ummah's body; as a result of multiple flags for the ripped states and factions!

This is the approved official flag of the state in Islam, as well as its banner... This is what is tied to the army leaders, lifted by the leaders in the wars and spread out amongst the soldiers... It is raised in the state institutions and departments... and is spread out amongst people in their festivals and in victory processions... This is the banner and the flag of the Islamic State following the example of the Messenger of Allah (saw).

As to the fact that some tribes used to take a flag with a special color in their wars to distinguish themselves, this is permissible. For example in war, the army of al-Sham can take a flag with a different color in addition to the black flag, and the army of Egypt can take also a flag with a different color in addition to the black flag... And this is from the permissible (Mubah). It was narrated in at-Tabarani in al-Kabeer on authority of Mazeeda al-Abdi' saying «إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَقَدَ رَايَاتِ الْأَنْصَارِ فَجَعَلَهُنَّ صُفَرًا»

"The Prophet (saw) has knotted the flags of al-Ansar and made them yellow." And it was narrated from Ibn Abi Asem in al-Aahad and al-Mathani on the authority of Kurz bin Sama who said: «...وَإِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَقَدَ رَايَةَ بَنِي سُلَيْمٍ حَمْرَاءَ»

"....And the Prophet (saw) knotted the flag of Bani Suleim red". So this is from the permissible (mubah). Army brigades nowadays use badges to differentiate themselves other than the official flag of the state, and it is permissible also to differentiate the armies by their names, as if numbering each army of its armies, so it is called: the first army, the third army for example, or naming it by its wilayah from the wilayat, or a province from its provinces, so it is called: Al-Sham Army or the Aleppo Army for example, and it is permissible for these divisions to have a special flag that distinguishes them administratively, raised in addition to the state's flag.

Thus, the banner of the Islamic state has specific descriptions, which is the legitimate (Shari') banner, which under which Dar al-Islam is sheltered, and by which the armies of Islam are shielded, so you escape from the death of ignorance that the Messenger of Allah (saw) described in his Hadith which was narrated by Muslim

... وَمَنْ قَاتلَ تَحْتَ رَايَةٍ عِمِّيَّةٍ، يَغْضَبُ لِعَصَبَةٍ، أو يَدْعُو إِلى عَصبَةٍ، أو يَنْصُرُ عَصَبَة، فَقُتِلَ فَقِتْلَةٌ جَاهِليَّةٌ»

"...and whoever is killed while under a banner of ignorance, getting angry for the sake of tribalism or fighting for the sake of tribalism or calling to tribalism then his death is that of jahiliyya". In this case, he (saw) called it the banner of ignorance (Amiyah), "from the word "Ta'miyah" meaning blinding, which is disguising and is interpreted as misguiding (Dhalal)". The rest of the Hadith interpreted it as the one fighting for the sake of tribalism, without knowledge or guidance or an enlightening Book, for people or for a class or a tyrant or any issue other than for Allah, like the fighting of ignorance. Or fighting not in order to support the Deen and establish the rule of Allah or for Jihad to uphold the word of Allah, but fighting under the banner of ignorance as the Hadith mentioned, and then if he is killed, then his death is that of Jahiliyya. This Hadith had related the banner to the meaning and not to the form only. What supports this meaning is what came of the meaning of the flag as the purpose for the fighting. It was narrated from the Prophet (saw) about the Romans, where he said:

«... هُدْنَةٌ تَكُونُ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَ بَنِي الأَصْفَرِ، فَيَغْدِرُونَ فَيَأْتُونَكُمْ تَحْتَ ثَمَانِينَ غَايَةً»

"....a treaty will be between you and the Romans, then they will betray you and march against you with eighty aims....", i.e. eighty banners. Hence the flag carries the idea and the purpose of which the fighting is for.

It is well known that states usually adopt flags to symbolize them and include slogans, drawings or words expressing their ideas and beliefs. They give them a kind of sanctity, and request from their citizens to have the symbol of loyalty to their homeland as their loyalty symbol. This is one of the international norms. From this aspect, the wrath of the West and their agents, the rulers of the damage, were provoked when the Muslims in Syria Ash-Sham adopted the flag; "Rayah or Liwaa", of the Prophet (saw). Some scholars embarked on issuing Fatwa to some factions on the doctrine of the rulers that it is permissible to take any form of banner or flag, and not necessary to commit to the banner of the Prophet (saw) and that it can be multiple. Thus, they were justifying for them to take the flags of Sykes-Picot, "Al-Amiaya" (ignorance), that was developed by the French and the British to entrench the concept of nationalism. So they made for each country of the Islamic countries a flag to be symbolized by. Thus these flags became a symbol of fragmentation and division, and a substitute for Al-Okab; the banner of the Messenger of Allah (saw). As these Kaffir colonists, the enemies of Islam have asked their agents, the Muslim rulers, to maintain the banners of division; because they know that the loyalty of these flags mean loyalty to the Kaffir colonists. And since the flag is a symbol of what it is put for; they are particularly keen to ensure that they are not touched except by their will. Thus, the fundamental problem with the West is that it rejects the Islamic flag; because it means that it was the flag of the State of the Prophet (saw), and because of it is afraid that it will be the flag of the promised Khilafah "Caliphate" Rashidah State which brings together Muslims under its rule. The root of the problem with these scholars is that their thought was not built on dissociation (Bara) from these rulers, and missed their minds that the Khilafah "Caliphate" State is a state that gathers Muslims under its presidency, and where loyalty is to Allah alone...

O Muslims: The Prophet (saw) has taken for the first Islamic State a banner and flag with clear and specific descriptions indicated by the text, and that Hizb ut Tahrir invites you to follow the example of the Prophet (saw) so that you would succeed...

((فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِينَ يُخَالِفُونَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَنْ تُصِيبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ))

"So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment." [An-Nur: 63].

Headlines:

• Texas Legislator Instructs Staff: Ask Muslims to Pledge Allegiance to America
• Pakistan Again Left Out in Favor of America's Closer Ties with India
• As Muslim Uighurs Flee, China Sees Jihad Risk

Details:

Texas Legislator Instructs Staff: Ask Muslims to Pledge Allegiance to America

A Texas state Representative today said she instructed her staff to ask Muslim constituents to "publicly announce allegiance to America." "Today is Texas Muslim Capital [sic] Day in Austin," newly-elected Republican state Rep. Molly White wrote on Facebook. "I did leave an Israeli flag on the reception desk in my office with instructions to staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community to renounce Islamic terrorist groups." "We will see how long they stay in my office," she added. In response to White's post, CAIR Government Affairs Manager Robert McCaw sent a letter to Texas Speaker Joe Straus asking if White violated any House ethics rules by "creating such an internal office policy that is selectively being enforced to discriminate against certain religious minorities." "The Texas Capitol belongs to all the people of this state, and legislators have a responsibility to treat all visitors just as we expect to be treated -- with dignity and respect," Straus said in a statement to ABC News. "Anything else reflects poorly on the entire body and distracts from the very important work in front of us." In a comment on Facebook, White wrote, "I do not apologize for my comments. ... if you love America, obey our laws and condemn Islamic terrorism, then I embrace you as a fellow American. If not, then I do not." "Isn't it amazing when you stand for America, our allies and against terrorism how much vile and angry responses you get? I will never cow to anti Americanism and extremists," she wrote in another comment. "I am banning users that are insulting." In a post earlier today, the Texas lawmaker insisted that "becoming an American" is "not the intent of most Muslims who move to America." "Remember, in the Koran, it is ok to lie for the purpose of advancing Islam," she wrote. "Texas must never allow fringe groups of people to come here so they can advance their own culture instead of becoming an American." [Source: ABC News]

Every day that goes past by it becomes increasingly evident the magnitude of hatred American lawmakers have for Islam. Yet despite this vitriol, Muslims in America continue to place their trust in the American system hoping that Obama will change its anti-American foreign policy. When will they wake up!

Pakistan Again Left Out in Favor of America's Closer Ties with India

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed on a joint strategic vision for regions straddling Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean last week. "To support regional economic integration, we will promote accelerated infrastructure connectivity and economic development in a manner that links South, Southeast and Central Asia, including by enhancing energy transmission and encouraging free trade and greater people-to-people linkages," the US-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region said. The statement also said that India and the United States are important drivers of regional and global growth. "From Africa to East Asia, we will build on our partnership to support sustainable, inclusive development, and increased regional connectivity by collaborating with other interested partners to address poverty and support broad-based prosperity." "We will oppose terrorism, piracy, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction within or from the region," the document said. A reference to Pakistan in a separate joint statement, the only time it was publicly named, in the context of terrorism, was slightly more nuanced than the formulation the two leaders had agreed in Washington in September last year. It reiterated Pakistan's obligation to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage to book. US action against Dawood Ibrahim, Jamaatud Dawa, the Haqqani group, among others was lauded and re-iterated. [Source: Dawn]

The Pakistani army brass has invested so much time, effort, money and blood only to be left out again. This time Obama has again confirmed that India and not Pakistan is America's principal agent in the region. So the question has to be asked of the military top brass, why are they investing so heavily in America's ‘war on terror' when Washington has clearly abandoned Islamabad in favor of closer ties with New Delhi?

As Muslim Uighurs Flee, China Sees Jihad Risk

In 2002, Mehmet was at university in Xinjiang, the northwest corner of China that is home to his Uighur ethnic group and the source of a wave of deadly violence in the past two years. He and some other Uighurs decided to support Turkey in the soccer World Cup, he said. Most Uighurs are Muslim, speak a Turkic language and consider themselves part of a broad family of ethnic Turks. But students from China's ethnic Han majority were offended, Mehmet said. A fight erupted, leading university authorities to expel six of his friends. So began a political awakening that led Mehmet to a prison labor camp in Xinjiang and ultimately to Turkey, following a perilous two-month voyage, mostly without a passport, through Central and Southeast Asia. Mehmet is among hundreds, possibly thousands, of Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gurs) who have fled China in recent years, often heading for Turkey via Thailand and Malaysia, say Uighur migrants, activists and government officials from countries along that route. Their flight is presenting China with many of the same fears that have plagued Western nations as they try to prevent their Muslim nationals from being radicalized or trained to fight overseas. Fearing Uighur separatists are adopting the ideology and tactics of jihadists, China wants to shut down what state media call the "underground railway," which Beijing says Uighurs are using to join Islamic State in Syria and Iraq or to escape after committing crimes. Over the past year, Beijing has increased pressure on foreign governments to help track Uighur militants, telling some there are roughly 300 Chinese Uighurs fighting with Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, say people briefed on those discussions. [Source: The Wall Street Journal]

From West to East, Muslim populations are treated so badly by their hosts that when few decide to become violent, neither Western governments or Chinese officials bother to look at the root cause. Instead they are quick to blame Islam. This myopic view is not un-intentional but by design. The focus of both West and East is to curb the Islamic revival sweeping the globe.